I have thought for many years now that that actually may be the case. I have read a science paper many years ago that science cannot account for the amount of oil that we have extracted and what we still know is in the ground. What the numbers reveal are not consistent with any known models as to how that much oil actually exists. There are individual pockets of oil that do go dry, but there are far more oil fields that continue to produce long after we ever thought they would.

I've had a conspiracy theory that there is limitless oil and that it is a closely guarded secret. The world's economy is based on oil and if the word ever got out that the theory of supply and demand would be upset with the knowledge that the stuff is about as common as oil, the world's economy would completely collapse.

The biotic v. abiotic formation of oil is a debate that is hotly contested among scientists. There might not be any "peak oil" at all, it might be limitless through geological processes.

Everybody seems to believe in Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory. Why do you believe in this theory? Within this article I present fairly convincing evidence that Peak Oil is a theory based on a false premise - that oil is a finite resource.

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." Sir Fred Hoyle FRS 1982.

"The general concept of petroleum formation by biogenic mechanisms has been firmly entrenched for a long time, but there has been no accumulation of convincing experimental evidence in support of this belief." -- Charles E. Melton and A.A. Giardini, 1983

My own layman's view -- as we all surely believe -- has always been that oil and gas are both derived through the natural and lengthy decomposition of organic detritus. Therefore I've always believed that oil is a finite resource and that it will eventually run out. But recently - and after much hard searching out of the facts, my view has changed. If the Russian view that oil and gas are continuously formed or replaced from a purely physical/chemical thermodynamic process that continuously regenerates oil from ultra-deep locations(>9,000 metres), then the inference here is that oil may, perhaps, not be a finite resource -- and that there is plenty of it.

Oil and Gas Origins - Biogenic or Abiotic ?

Do oil and gas originate from the biological decomposition of organic material (biotic, biogenic) or do they originate simply through a natural physical and chemical thermodynamic process involving just heat and pressure(abiotic, abiogenic)?

It is notable that the whole of Hubbert's Theory of Peak Oil rests completely on the assumption that oil is biogenic in origin. Therefore oil is a finite resource. Simply everyone believes this, because everyone believes that this is a proven fact. I have also read that this Biogenic Theory directly contradicts and offends the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I became suspicious, so I searched all over the internet for substantiative proof -- and particularly the research articles in Google Scholar.

Evidence for The Western Biogenic Theory of Oil Formation

1. In 1757 Russian Scientist, Mikhailo Lomonosov put forward a hypothesis and suggested that oil came from biological detritus.

2. The main argument put forward by the Western Biotic Oil theorists is that biomarkers are always found to exist as organic detritus within all oil deposits, which is certainly true. But unfortunately, oil exists inside the earth, and is surrounded by different types of geological soils - which all contain organic detritus - and oil is a wonderful solvent in which to dissolve and hold this detritus. Also, and by the reverse argument, alkanes, kerogens and many other petroleum related chemicals have been found on meteorites - which can support no organic life. This can be verified by looking at the evidence at the Gas Resources website(read and check the links in the Introduction)and at this CNRS Research site.

2. In his paper "The Abiotic Oil Controversy" by Richard Heinberg which sides with biogenic oil (With relatively little actual quoted research evidence) has even admitted :

"There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin...Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth's surface. But the important question to keep in mind is: What are the practical consequences of this discussion now for the problem of global oil depletion? "

The normal geologists view is that all oil and gas formation is biogenic from organic detritus. So I began with Wikipedia which indeed puts forth and recognised the theories of both Biogenic and Abiotic oil and gas origin. And although there has been clear, modern Russian research evidence cited for the theory of Abiotic Oil formation - oddly - there were no proper research citations or references regarding the Western Biogenic Theory of Oil in Wikipedia. I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no 'absolute proof' or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory -- for want of a better word -- seems to be greatly 'assumed' by geologists throughout geological research.

Evidence for the Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation

I am certainly surprised to admit that there is such a large body of research on this theory -- and all mainly Russian in origin. But this modern research -- which is very detailed, seems to have been generally and surprisingly ignored by the West.

1. In the 19th century various abiogenic hypotheses were first proposed after advances in science in the nineteenth century by Alexander von Humboldt, Dmitri Mendeleev and Marcellin Berthalot.2. Definition and Evidence3. An Article called Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection to Biogenic Oil by J F Kenney(within the Scientific Publications Section). This is a detailed and scientifically rigourous paper which sets sets out to disprove all the various "fuzzy" assumptions for the Western Theory of Biogenic Oil Formation. This was the article that completely convinced me of the truth of The Russian-Ukrainian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation.4. Nikolai Kudrayvtsev's Theory(1951)5. Abiogenic(Abiotic) Petroleum Origin - Wikipedia6. "An Introduction to the Modern Petroleum Science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian Theory of Deep, Abiotic Petroleum Origins"(within the Introduction section) by J.F. Kenney, Russian Academy of Sciences.7. In the 'Introduction' and 'Scientific Publications' section of GasResources.net there are many bona fide Russian research articles.8. A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney(Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Here is an extract:

"ABSTRACT: For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race is imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all predictions have depended fundamentally upon anarchaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolve from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance. That hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence."

9. Considerations about Recent Predictions of Impending Shortages of Petroleum(within the Economics publication section)) by J.F. Kenney9. A Russian Book - 'Advanced Drilling Solutions' detailing deep and ultra-deep oil drilling technology beyond the Earth's crust and sedimentary layers to depths of over 40,000 ft'.10. Confirmation that oil fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin in the Ukraine are Aboitic(within the )11. Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory

Apparent Disinformation and Prejudicial Judgement of the Russian Abiotic Oil TheoryIt is peculiar that there has been so little Western scientific peer reviews or acknowledgement or research verification concerning the utra-deep Russian Abiotic Oil Formation Theory. Surely this is suspicious and bears investigating -- even if you don't believe the theory -- because this would certainly remove the geopolitical effects and problems of the current thinking on oil -- that it is running out. Concerning this theory, I have also found some evidence of plagiarism, disinformation and misrepresentation of research data regarding the Russian Abiotic Theory by fairly eminent western scientists and western news resources :

1. Accusations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation of Abiotic Russian Research on Thomas Gold a well known US scientist.

In the end, I have to agree that the Russian Abiotic Theory of Oil Formation - backed up by all its evidence, is far more likely to be the true explanation. And there appears to be little or no conclusive evidence to prove the Western Biotic Theory of Oil. But that leaves much unanswered doesn't it? For what reasons then - in light of these facts and conclusions - is the Peak Oil Theory being so heavily touted - a theory that is wholly dependent on the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation which - as I see it - is a completely unproven theory? Are Western geologists and scientists really that stupid or unfair or is there an underlying, hidden agenda and media steerage here - by the Big Oil Majors or OPEC - to perhaps discreetly encourage higher oil prices through promotion of a false "scarcity" of this resource by conveniently supporting the Western Biotic Theory of Oil Formation(now disproven and defunct) to so heavily promote Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory?

See my other continuation article "DeepOil, Deep Power and Deep Pockets". for further reading.

I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

Of course it's possible, but it's just not worth it - the thing with the oil that's already there is that we need to put no energy into production, so we get lots of kick for little effort.

But if you go producing it you're going to find that you're actually not really making a net energy gain, so you'd end up spending more energy for making your fuel than you'd get back out of burning it.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

Possible, yes, but not practical.

Now, you can make cars that run on alcohol, and you get alcohol from plants, for example. That can help with fuel shortages. It's not great, but in certain places under certain circumstances it's better than oil.

Oil and gas may be created through natural geological processes and not dead animal/plant matter?

I have never even considered that a possibility, even though it makes a whole lot of sense, every other underground material is created that way: Gold, diamonds, quartz, mole people, etc. So why not coal, oil and gas?

This is something I will have to research an awful lot more, but thanks for the exposure.

I've never read an abstract quite so rhetorical in its objective, to the point that I wouldn't even call it an abstract. It's an argument.

Digging into it, the author is not a scientist but a former banker from the UK living in the Philippines. He also wrote an article questioning germ theory (the theory that disease is caused by microbes which originate outside the body) which includes the following spectacular line:

we are still no closer to an actual cure for Cancer or AIDS or heart disease or Alzheimer's or HIV etc - the list goes on and on ?

I seriously and solemnly hope this is true but having done quite a bit of work of peak oil and when will the world run out of oil I suggest this is a bit fishy..

The idea that oil can be created extremely quickly and replenished is not new.. some guys ago said that oil sands were actually replenishing themselves however a quick look at satellite footage showed they were wrong and that the sands had constantly declined.

Now you're not wrong, oil is an infinite resource (as long as there's a sun and molten core to the Earth) however we use it at such a speed it cannot replenish quickly enough..

If oil was secretly being hoarded underground by the big oil companies to drive up the price, why bother going up to Alaska to dig holes in the freezing cold snow and ice for a few million barrels of oil?And even if this was the case why does everyone right up to the US military calculate that they will have shortages of oil by around.. well now, 2012, was predicted the year of peak oil, give or take a decade this will, in hindsight be about right..

I would love to believe that we can keep using oil, but for now I'll stick with a large proportion of the Earth's scientists, politicians and oil companies that say we are going to run out, and its going to be this century..

Can someone please just get on and make hydrogen power work.. please.. I don't want an collapse of society in my lifetime..

Uuuh..Where was the "evidence" in the article? He just skipped to the conclusion.I'm no scientist either, but there is no such thing as an "infinite"-resource. Even if oil was made from rock, we would still probably be burning through it too fast for the reserves to be restored, and that's not even mentioning global warming.So yeah, we might have an infinite suppl of oil, which just means that we will screw ourselves for sure, instead of just most likely. Think about it..Instead of heating the globe at this rate every year for the next fifty or sixty years, we could be doing it ad infinitum, or atleast 'till be killed ourselves off.

This requires you to believe that Global Warming insn't part of the "liberal agenda cospiracy", of course.

There is another facility that is attempting to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and create crude-like hydro-carbons, though I haven't heard as much about that one lately. I have to run for the moment, so I'll provide a link later.

In any case, petrol prices will remain hiked as long as we don't take advantage of what we have to smooth production. I'm aware that there are costs to convert such waste, but even that facility mentioned above has an impressive effective cost per barrel, and uses relatively few BTUs to run.

Take from that what you will, but there is some hope. We just have to figure out how to best use the tech we have.

Realitycrash:Uuuh..Where was the "evidence" in the article? He just skipped to the conclusion.I'm no scientist either, but there is no such thing as an "infinite"-resource. Even if oil was made from rock, we would still probably be burning through it too fast for the reserves to be restored, and that's not even mentioning global warming.So yeah, we might have an infinite suppl of oil, which just means that we will screw ourselves for sure, instead of just most likely. Think about it..Instead of heating the globe at this rate every year for the next fifty or sixty years, we could be doing it ad infinitum, or atleast 'till be killed ourselves off.

This requires you to believe that Global Warming insn't part of the "liberal agenda cospiracy", of course.

NightHawk21:Guys pretty sure this is troll thread. New user 1 post, point of view that makes no sense, ya I'm gonna call troll.

I'm going to agree with this. My bullshit detector rang something fierce based just on the rhetorical density of the quoted article.

Anyway, even if we had an infinite supply of oil, why would we want to keep using it anyway? My hometown used to be so dirty and polluted you couldn't hang your laundry out to dry outside because it would get covered in ash and soot. That was before my time, but I'd rather not see that happen again.

...what? the OP needs to calm down. If for some weird reason he was correct (everything is finite as far as I can tell) what diffrence would it make, geological processes still take hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions, to do anything so peak oil still applies since there will be a finite amount available at any one time.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

You can also turn lead and iron into gold. But the process would cost more than the created gold would be worth.

And making oil out of dead plants and animals would cost more than it would be actually worth it, both time and money.

Pfff. This is old news. The dead plant and animal material I eat occassionally gets turned into gas too. So I was onto this stuff a long time ago. XD lol.

But stuff like artificial fuels have been going on for ages. Like diesel fuel, the Germans in WWI/WWII, and they're experimenting with turning garbage into oil, making it out of seaweed and loads of other crap.

It's just that it's too expensive. So as long as we don't step away from gas/coal/oil entirely we'll be burning the stuff until we run out. Then all hell will break loose and we'll be pointing fingers at each other trying to play innocent.

Not too long ago scientists managed to create plastic without oil, so we're getting there. Any day now, any day now.

Realitycrash:Uuuh..Where was the "evidence" in the article? He just skipped to the conclusion.I'm no scientist either, but there is no such thing as an "infinite"-resource. Even if oil was made from rock, we would still probably be burning through it too fast for the reserves to be restored, and that's not even mentioning global warming.So yeah, we might have an infinite suppl of oil, which just means that we will screw ourselves for sure, instead of just most likely. Think about it..Instead of heating the globe at this rate every year for the next fifty or sixty years, we could be doing it ad infinitum, or atleast 'till be killed ourselves off.

This requires you to believe that Global Warming insn't part of the "liberal agenda cospiracy", of course.

oooo ooo i never get a chance to use this

love that imagealso love the new captcha i can read it xD

I understand the left image being about environmental conspiracy, but is the one on the right also supposed to be a conspiracy?

OT: I'm not sure about that guys info. If oil was abiotic like gold and diamonds, why does crude contain so many different elements and chemicals?

Infinite Oil? Then why are we drilling under the sea and fighting over who gets Kuwait instead of just using the same wells in Pennsylvania as always?

The conspiracy angle is also stupid. What benefit does Iran get from Exxon making big profits? Or Venezuela? Or Russia? Or Mexico? Oil is a fungible commodity, any of these nations can profit by using their own infinite supplies to push prices to the cost of drilling, undercutting Big Oil and lining the pockets of the ruling party at the same time.

I don't see them doing this, nor do I see any compelling reason why they wouldn't do this, so I'm rejecting the infinite oil hypothesis.

Hero in a half shell:Oil and gas may be created through natural geological processes and not dead animal/plant matter?

I have never even considered that a possibility, even though it makes a whole lot of sense, every other underground material is created that way: Gold, diamonds, quartz, mole people, etc. So why not coal, oil and gas?

This is something I will have to research an awful lot more, but thanks for the exposure.

Because oil, gas and coal are not "stone" (minerals). They are carbohydrates, and are composed of completely different elements than the rest of the crust.

Hero in a half shell:Oil and gas may be created through natural geological processes and not dead animal/plant matter?

I have never even considered that a possibility, even though it makes a whole lot of sense, every other underground material is created that way: Gold, diamonds, quartz, mole people, etc. So why not coal, oil and gas?

This is something I will have to research an awful lot more, but thanks for the exposure.

Because oil, gas and coal are not "stone" (minerals). They are carbohydrates, and are composed of completely different elements than the rest of the crust.

Technically they are hydrocarbons not carbohydrates, but your point still stands. They are organic molecules, and I can't imagine them forming on their own from inorganic materials.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

Possible, yes, but not practical.

Now, you can make cars that run on alcohol, and you get alcohol from plants, for example. That can help with fuel shortages. It's not great, but in certain places under certain circumstances it's better than oil.

Wasn't there something a few months ago about scientists discovering a rearrangement of carbon atoms that essentially created crude oil? What happened to that?

If it's true, I hope it didn't get swept under the rug by oil companies so they can continue to raise prices...

Saucycarpdog:I understand the left image being about environmental conspiracy, but is the one on the right also supposed to be a conspiracy?

More a criticism of how the lobbying system in the States works. Without getting too much into it, lobbying basically means lying like hell; pushing for legislation favorable to your industry, consequences be damned; and bribing people, but instead of bribes you now call them "campaign contributions."

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

Possible, yes, but not practical.

Now, you can make cars that run on alcohol, and you get alcohol from plants, for example. That can help with fuel shortages. It's not great, but in certain places under certain circumstances it's better than oil.

Wasn't there something a few months ago about scientists discovering a rearrangement of carbon atoms that essentially created crude oil? What happened to that?

If it's true, I hope it didn't get swept under the rug by oil companies so they can continue to raise prices...

I highly doubt such a thing exists. Crude oil is a very complex mixture of a lot of different types of hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and other impurities. It would be impossible to create crude oil from "re-arranging" carbon atoms, as that mixture just wouldn't be possible (or really desirable) to re-create. Crude oil must go through pretty extensive refinement to separate out all the crap and split all the useful stuff off from everything else. If you wanted the components of crude oil it'd be easier to make them individually rather than try to recreate a very complex mixture. This also basically refutes the OP's idea that crude oil can be infinitely generated, as simple geology doesn't have the capability to create such a complex mixture of organic molecules on its own.

It is possible to create single types of hydrocarbons through some biological processes, and possibly some chemical processes. I actually work for a company right now that creates ethanol using the waste parts of corn harvesting using biological reactions. This ethanol can help supplement the regular gasoline most cars use. But it's just a single small hydrocarbon (C2H4OH) Regular gasoline I believe uses octane and other larger hydrocarbons, so it's not a perfect replacement.

Istvan:Well this is great news, get back to us when you've figured out how to produce oil in infinite amounts and you'll be crowned king of the universe.

Also I should note that the world economy isn't based on oil, it's just a post on the list of expenses in getting goods made or moved around.

This. The moment an oil company figures out how to harness infinite oil, they win at oil production. Forever.

Generally speaking you can spot a bad conspiriacy theory when ultimately if you had that kind of technology, it'd make more sense to sell it for massive profits than spend time and money covering it up.

They always require that companies have no concept of competitive advantage and would rather prevent anyone from having a new advance than instead patenting it and using it to make obscene profits. I mean, you can't exactly patent oil, but for "infinite oil" to actually be a game changer it must still be more easy to get than oil actually is, otherwise we won't run out of oil, we'll just run out of oil we can drill for and it doesn't matter how much there is.

I've had a conspiracy theory that there is limitless oil and that it is a closely guarded secret. The world's economy is based on oil and if the word ever got out that the theory of supply and demand would be upset with the knowledge that the stuff is about as common as oil, the world's economy would completely collapse.

I'm a bit confused here, are you arguing that oil is an infinite resource? Or are you arguing that it is a finite resource?

If the former then it would sadly seem that intelligence is a finite resource.

Finite resource is a resource that we deplete faster than it can be replenished.

Do you think Nature can pump that much oil inside it's crust at the same rate we burn it? I don't think so.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

Speeding the process? Oh, you.

Millions of years happening in a week/month? Good luck with that, the most you can do is get dead plants and put them under extreme pressures.

Hero in a half shell:Oil and gas may be created through natural geological processes and not dead animal/plant matter?

I have never even considered that a possibility, even though it makes a whole lot of sense, every other underground material is created that way: Gold, diamonds, quartz, mole people, etc. So why not coal, oil and gas?

This is something I will have to research an awful lot more, but thanks for the exposure.

Because carbon is a biological molecule, it tends to exist in living matter since ALL living matter uses carbon to build most of its usefull compounds. The core of amino acids contains a crap tonne of carbon, YOU are made of a LOT of carbon.

Its called the carbon cycle. All this carbon was pretty much ripped from the earth when protolife begand building itself. Co2 levels rose to INSANE levels. So plants evolved to take advantage of this. Then we had balance again. Trees died and "locked" carbon away in their dead trunks (like the wood that we use to make things, its a carbon "block" if you will) bringing the carbon content of the earth down. All the CO2 in the atmosphere was taken by theis HUGE sprout of pine forest that occured in the early stages of life and was then trapped underground or in oceans by these dead trees.

This can still happen today but back then the climate and high CO2 atmosphere made it a MUCH better environment. Over thousands of years pressure broke down that building block into its purer carbonic state, in fact forcing it to become a lot of hydocarbons. Oil. ANd coal. Carbon isnt an earth "element". Its all pretty much in life. Oil wells are carbon "sinks" or storange and basically we are letting it all out of the barrel. This in effect takes us toward the CO2 levels we had before life really began (of course there is less because there is more biomass ALIVE "storing" this carbon). SO basically yeah you cant just "get" oil. Carbon is the keystone of all organic molecules.

Carbon gets in the ground because we (life) put it there. It doesnt just happen.

Ok, I didnt read the massive wall of text, but I thought I put some more science in this and say that we can make more oil, but it would take millions of years of immense heat and pressure, current oil is made of dead dinosaurs.

HardkorSB:I was always wondering:Assuming that oil is indeed just dead plants and animals (I'm not going to get into your theory without some additional research, which I don't feel like doing right now), can't we use dead plants and animals and somehow speed up the process of turning that into oil? I'm no scientist but it seems highly possible.

You are not a scientist, yet you have come to this conclusion. If something is this obvious you can bet that you're not the first one who has had the idea. If it has not been done despite being obvious, then it's obviously a hard thing to manage.

Also OP, oil might be formed constantly however that doesn't mean the rates are high enough to make it an infinite resource. It has taken several hundred million years with biodegredation to give us what oil we have today and we use oil in large quantities, we use coal in large quantities, we use gases. We use oil at a higher rate than it is formed while we're also disturbing the places where the conditions where oil is formed which decreases the rate it is formed.

You take random pieces of facts that you don't really understand and create a conspiracy theory around it. Try to study it in depth rather than reading trivia.

The thing with the oil that's already there is that we need to put no energy into production, so we get lots of kick for little effort.

But if you go producing it you're going to find that you're actually not really making a net energy gain, so you'd end up spending more energy for making your fuel than you'd get back out of burning it.

THAT is the problem with "peak oil".

The issue here is that "production" is not "little effort". Peak oil, in this sense, is everyone's way of saying that the effort is about to increase, along with the price. Now, the price may be indirect--as with natural gas hydro-fracking, which causes groundwater and tremor issues--or it may be direct, in that the price of gasoline passes 4.25 a gallon AGAIN.

Hero in a half shell:Oil and gas may be created through natural geological processes and not dead animal/plant matter?

I have never even considered that a possibility, even though it makes a whole lot of sense, every other underground material is created that way: Gold, diamonds, quartz, mole people, etc. So why not coal, oil and gas?

This is something I will have to research an awful lot more, but thanks for the exposure.

Because carbon is a biological molecule, it tends to exist in living matter since ALL living matter uses carbon to build most of its usefull compounds. The core of amino acids contains a crap tonne of carbon, YOU are made of a LOT of carbon.

Its called the carbon cycle. All this carbon was pretty much ripped from the earth when protolife begand building itself. Co2 levels rose to INSANE levels. So plants evolved to take advantage of this. Then we had balance again. Trees died and "locked" carbon away in their dead trunks (like the wood that we use to make things, its a carbon "block" if you will) bringing the carbon content of the earth down. All the CO2 in the atmosphere was taken by theis HUGE sprout of pine forest that occured in the early stages of life and was then trapped underground or in oceans by these dead trees.

This can still happen today but back then the climate and high CO2 atmosphere made it a MUCH better environment. Over thousands of years pressure broke down that building block into its purer carbonic state, in fact forcing it to become a lot of hydocarbons. Oil. ANd coal. Carbon isnt an earth "element". Its all pretty much in life. Oil wells are carbon "sinks" or storange and basically we are letting it all out of the barrel. This in effect takes us toward the CO2 levels we had before life really began (of course there is less because there is more biomass ALIVE "storing" this carbon). SO basically yeah you cant just "get" oil. Carbon is the keystone of all organic molecules.

Carbon gets in the ground because we (life) put it there. It doesnt just happen.

Just to add a bit to this post, way back when the first hard trunk trees were first starting to grow ( called the carboniferous period) the trees found a new way to protect their bark with like a waxy coating ( I think lignin, but I could be wrong) and back then no bacteria or fungi could digest this plant matter. So there were massive amounts of undigestable plant matter accumulating whenever trees died.

Nowadays fungi and some bacteria can break down cellulose and lignin into monomeric sugars, and so this accumulation doesn't happen anymore. Not to mention the widespread harvesting of trees for other purposes that limits the amount of natural tree death substantially.